Republicans continue post-election outreach programs

Following their losses in the 2012 elections, Republican officials across America have stepped up their outreach efforts to improve their standing with black voters, voters over age 65, college students, disaster victims, voters with disabilities and women voters.

• Ron Weiser, finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, continues his party’s outreach to black voters.

• Sen. Tom Coburn explores new strategy for Republican outreach to voters over age 65.

• Florida Republican leaders explain outreach effort to appeal to younger voters.

• Rep. Scott Garrett continues Republican outreach to victims of natural disasters.

• Rick Santorum spearheads Republican outreach to voters with disabilities and those who love them.

• House Republicans outline plan to demonstrate commitment to women and minorities.

• Glenn Reynolds also offers his plan for Republican outreach to women voters.

• Rep. Steve King continues Republican outreach to Latino voters.

 

  • Jeff

    Lliira, I’m glad to hear that you are able to get the medical care that you need and that your quality of life will soon improve as a result.  I think that’s a good thing.  I will simply observe that the provision of Obamacare that seems to be most responsible in your situation is the one pertaining to pre-existing conditions.  I don’t personally think that one is the problematic bit of the overall legislation — it’s the other parts of Obamacare that I think will lead to problems in the long run.  But this is a thread ostensibly about minorities and Republicans, so no need to go into that further. 

    Good luck with your upcoming surgery!

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    And again, my point with the deficit/entitlements was simply that
    wanting to restrain entitlement spending growth isn’t reflective of
    racism on the part of Republicans.

    Yeah, I have not trouble believing Republicans hate all poor people, regardless of race, creed or color.  It’s all the OTHER stuff they do that makes me think the GOP panders to racists.  See:  Birth Certificate, the state of Arizona, vote suppression…

  • Lori

     I don’t recall ever seeing anyone win tires on a game show. There was one, I want to say it was The Price Is Right way back in the day that did give away car wax on more than one occasion. I remember it because it seemed like a less than thrilling prize, not least because it creates work for the winner. It’s not like that stuff puts itself on. I guess the assumption back then was that everyone was already waxing their car on a regular basis.

  • EllieMurasaki

    the (dubious) assumption that Obamacare will be deficit-neutral or will actually reduce the deficit

    Meet Jack. Jack is diabetic. Jack is uninsured. Because there is no currently effective provision in the law to prohibit insurance companies from denying potential customers for preexisting conditions unless the customers in question are under nineteen or have been uninsured at least six months (Jack is neither), Jack cannot get insurance.

    Insulin costs a fuckton if insurance isn’t helping.

    By careful dietary management, Jack can keep himself from having too high or too low blood sugar. But all it takes is one time overestimating how much sugar he can eat at this sitting to put Jack in the emergency room.
    Emergency room treatment costs a FUCKTON.

    How is it less expensive to pay for Jack’s emergency room visits than to pay for Jack’s insulin?

  • EllieMurasaki

    So if other people’s quality of life is a thing that matters to you, do you support increasing the asset restrictions on food stamp recipients such that it’s actually possible to work one’s way out of poverty without losing the food stamps until one is far enough out of poverty that losing the food stamps won’t plunge one right back in?

  • Lori

     

    And again, my point with the deficit/entitlements was simply that
    wanting to restrain entitlement spending growth isn’t reflective of
    racism on the part of Republicans.   

    Funny how the entitlements that they want to “restrain” disproportionately effect non-whites and the GOP sells their entitlement restraint plans using very thinly veiled racism to get their base all fired up. Notice y’all never talk about cutting corporate welfare (as was mentioned in one of Elie’s posts that you’re apparently ignoring) or even entitlements that predominantly benefit middle class whites, like the mortgage credit (which I think someone else mentioned earlier). The GOP has worked very hard for many years now at convincing people that “entitlements” exclusively means welfare payments collected strictly by lazy people, almost all of whom are black and brown. (If you try to say that’s not the case you have either not been paying attention, you’re not very perceptive or you’re lying because you don’t want to own what you support.)

    But sure, if you ignore all that then the GOP plan isn’t reflective of racism at all.

  • Lori

    I don’t personally think that one is the problematic bit of the overall
    legislation — it’s the other parts of Obamacare that I think will lead
    to problems in the long run.  But this is a thread ostensibly about
    minorities and Republicans, so no need to go into that further.

    Off topic is certainly nothing new here, so share away. Which parts of the ACA do you think are problematic over the long run. Keep in mind that if your issue is with the mandate the you have an issue with coverage for pre-existing conditions because without the mandate you can’t have that coverage.

  • AnonymousSam

    When the person the GOP has nominated to represent them dismisses nearly half of the country for not paying taxes and mocks the idea that they think they should be allowed to eat, and the room stands up to applaud him, I don’t think the problem is that we’re just too stupid to understand the brilliance of the meaning for the gaffe-prone tendencies of the speaker. It’s not like missing the forest for the trees here.

    1) It’s a stunning display of stupidity. The statistic is fully correct; 47% of the United States doesn’t pay income tax. That’s because 47% of the United States is children and the elderly, who we don’t expect to have an income in the first places. You also don’t need to be the IRS to know that they’re not fully exempt from paying taxes, either; there are more types of taxation than just income. Sales tax, for example? A candy bar at the grocery store in my state gets taxed by both sales tax and a sin tax nowadays.

    2) Even if it meant what he apparently thought it did and a sizable chunk of the adult population was failing to pay income taxes, what does it say of a man vying to be president of the United States to slam them and say he owes them nothing, rather than vow to bring about reforms? Especially with his inclusion that “they think they’re entitled to food.” So… what? He wants them to starve to death?

    And again, no one stood up to say, “There’s something very wrong with this statement.” They applauded. The GOP fucking applauded the idea of saying “Fuck these people. Let ‘em die. We don’t owe them a damn thing.”

    I think I get the message, thank you.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Point of order: a lot of people with incomes get as much in federal income tax refunds as they get withheld from their paychecks, or they don’t have anything withheld and end up owing nothing, on account of they don’t have a hell of a lot of income. These are part of Romney’s 47%.

  • AnonymousSam

    True. And as someone who was in the latter group, making $6000 a year, it’s about as close to gaming the system as skipping the emergency room and doing your own surgery with a steak knife.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, I know, but you said the whole of the 47% was people with no income, which is false. Arguing the facts works better when the facts are true, you know?

  • Gotchaye

    I’m also curious to know what parts of Obamacare you’re worried about, but I mostly wanted to note that if the expected budget deficit  for FY22 is $650B, then we’re in pretty good shape.  That sort of deficit would stabilize debt/GDP at about 1, assuming 3% average GDP growth.

  • AnonymousSam

    I — hm. Yes, I am appropriately reprimanded. Shall I write lines on the chalkboard or would you prefer to spank me with a ruler?

  • Lori

    Um, not cool Sam.

  • AnonymousSam

    If that offends, and even if it didn’t: Sorry, that was intended entirely to be self-deprecatory humor.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    By careful dietary management, Jack can keep himself from having too
    high or too low blood sugar.

    If this is true, Jack is moderately lucky.

    If it remains true for the entire rest of his life after he’s diagnosed, Jack is exceptionally lucky.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Hence the emergency room visits.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    In the old days before Banting and insulin, diabetics used to follow the Atkins diet to try and extend their lives. I believe one person managed to live for five years after diagnosis before his body finally could no longer keep going. :O

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    A general rule of thumb is that 1/3 of the US population is not of working age* (either too young or too old), so of the 47% a maximum of 33% would be drawn from sectors who would not earn an income enough to warrant paying tax by virtue of their removal from the labor force.


    * You can deduce this from the registered-voter counts and voting-age population counts.

  • Demonhype

     Dishonesty again.  You know damned well that the current rates mean that the rich are paying infinitely lower tax rates than working class people, and all we’re asking is the rich should pay their fair share.  The Republicans want to raise taxes on the working class and even the working poor (by removing the work-credit system) while leaving the low rates for the rich and even cutting them further.  Even leaving them where they are amounts to tax cuts for the rich, since their tax rates are a joke.  And you know it.  But keep trying to obfuscate the situation and blow smoke over reality.  It did your party so much good in the 2012 election, after all.

    People aren’t stupid, and when your message is “screw you, I got mine”, at some point there’s no way you can frame it to mask the reality that most of us are living with every day.

  • Demonhype

     They vote Democrat because they are not willing to vote away their food and rights and employment opportunities just to be vindictive to some “whores”.  Because, as I said, they are not stupid like a lot of poor white Republicans are.

    I mean, I don’t always agree with the liberal view on guns, yet I vote liberal every time.  I guess it’s entirely because the Republicans haven’t shown me how fantastic they are–or I’m just too blind to see it–and not because my one view about gun policy is not worth voting for the myriad of atrocities that the Republican party stands for.

  • Demonhype

     Oh, but that wasn’t voter suppression!  The Republicans totally think black people should have the right to vote!  They just think that it should be contingent on jumping through various pricey hoops that mostly only middle-class and rich white Republican voters can afford!  See!  Equality!

    I feel sick even trying to channel their duplicity.

  • Demonhype

     Yes, dishonest Republican is dishonest.  What’s new?  All those “good values” he touts are dogwhistles for their racism, sexism, bigotry, and robbery of the poor that is inevitably enacted in their policies every time they get into power and those policies inevitably ruin the country worse each time.

    And all this whinging about abortion from them, about how it’s for “the poor innocent little babbies” and how much they care about children–but then they enact policies that will ensure those poor babies don’t have proper nutrition.  Or housing.  Or education.  Because in reality, their motivation is to punish a “whore” for the crime of having had sex at any point, and they don’t care one whit about the poor innocent little babies.  If that baby they fought so hard to ensure would be brought to term against the mother’s will starves or dies of a treatable disease or freezes–well, that’s the mother’s punishment for being a WHORE.  There’s also the mentality that a child is a bit of property, so as far as the right-wing is concerned, tax money going to ensure a proper diet for a poor child is EXACTLY the same as tax money going to buy that poor person a Mustang.  It’s a twisted mentality, and I can’t imagine how any of them manage to live with themselves.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, I think they’d be a lot happier if they could figure out how to reinstate poll taxes and literacy tests and grandfathered-in voters without running afoul of the laws saying that that’s racist bullshit and not allowed.

    Though today I don’t think it’d work. Too many brown voters have money and/or can read and/or have grandparents who could vote.

  • Demonhype

     It would help if the media wasn’t overwhelmingly owned and operated by the Republicans–which is one of the things that sickens me even more about people like Jeff who whine about how the media is somehow just a lot of liberal liars making Repubs look bad.  Seriously, the liberal side has never been the side of the powers-that-be.  Ever.  It’s always been an uphill battle fighting for liberal values because those already entrenched have always had the money, power, and entire infrastructure in their control.  I keep hearing about this liberal media, and I’d really really love to see it, because all I ever see is two breeds:  Right-wing Conservative and Lukewarm Conservative.  To hear people like Jeff whining about how the media that is owned and operated by his own party–to the point where one of them, Fox “News”, is able to disseminate Republican-approved misinformation and outright lies as truth 24/7, is both laughable and sickening all at once.

  • Demonhype

     At the state level, the Republicans relied heavily on gerrymandered districts that they had carefully redrawn so as to ensure their own victory.  Like here in Ohio, the majority vote was for Obama so he got the electoral votes, but because the Dem areas had been hacked to pieces and spread around into majority batshit-insane Repub districts, they won on the state level.  They cheated, in other words, by redrawing districts in the most painfully absurd and elaborate fashion so as to render Democratic votes impotent–though it didn’t translate into the national election because the electoral votes aren’t based on districts. 

    And Husted here in Ohio wants to find a way to extend that cheat to the national elections, so that Republicans can be ensured victory no matter how the actual election goes down.  He wants to make a state electoral college so that their cheat-districts they’ve drawn, with the Dem votes rendered meaningless, will determine the electoral votes by giving each district an electoral vote and basing where the presidential electoral votes go on that.  Again, cheating, with is the last and only chance the Repubs have, as they have lost all credibility, having run out of persuadable white voters and having burned their bridges with minorities.  They’re filth at their core.

  • Demonhype

     Excellently stated, Darkrose!  *rousing applause*  It sickens me when they ask “what’s wrong with black people”.  Contrary to popular racist belief, black people aren’t stupid and they know who has little to no respect for them as human beings, much less their practical interests at heart–and that’s not something wrong with them but something very right!  If black people were voting for a party that has such open contempt and disregard for them, and who enacts actively racist policies that target black people disproportionately and blames them for everything bad in the world, it would be the biggest case of Stockholm Syndrome ever encountered!  At risk of Godwinning, for them to wonder why black people won’t vote for them is like Nazis wondering why the Jews won’t vote for them.

    Come to think of it, I sometimes wonder if by “what’s wrong” they are confused that  black people aren’t as stupid and easily lied to as many of the poor white people who they’ve convinced to vote the food out of their children’s mouths.  Or even more like it’s not so much “what’s wrong with black people” as it is “what’s wrong with what I have always been taught and assumed to be true about black people’ s intelligence”.  I imagine them furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation, wondering why the black people, which they’ve always been told by their racist parents and relatives and teachers and politicians are stupid aren’t buying what they’re selling–esp. when so many poor white people have swallowed their obvious lies with relish.

    Okay, now I feel filthy trying to figure out how a racist’s mind works, so I think I’ll stop right there.   But I am delighting in the mind-melting blend of racist certainty and electoral confusion they seem to be writhing in right now.  Sweet shadenfreude!

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    At risk of Godwinning, for them to wonder why black people won’t vote
    for them is like Nazis wondering why the Jews won’t vote for them.

    I’d like to suggest a new generalized non-Godwin, if we may:

    It would be like wondering why a black South African would have ever voted in favor of apartheid.

  • hidden_urchin

    Let’s all take a minute to think nice things about LBJ.  The guy may have had problems with Vietnam but he certainly got a lot of good social policies enacted- the Voting Rights Act being one of them.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *toasts*

  • Jeff

    “The GOP has worked very hard for many years now at convincing people that “entitlements” exclusively means welfare payments collected strictly by lazy people, almost all of whom are black and brown. ”

    Lori, most of the conversation during the Presidential campaign focused on structural reforms to Medicare, and Medicare recipients are 85% over the age of 65 and 80% white.  The purpose of the proposed reforms is entirely to make the program financially solvent.  You presumably disagree with the GOP’s proposed approach, but to continue to insist that it is due to racism just can’t be sustained. 

  • Jeff

    “I mostly wanted to note that if the expected budget deficit  for FY22 is $650B, then we’re in pretty good shape.  That sort of deficit would stabilize debt/GDP at about 1, assuming 3% average GDP growth.”

    Well, then you’ll be cheered by the President’s budget, which projects 7% economic growth over the next decade!  Although that would certainly be a great thing; even the 3% you predict would be great, but it does seem optimistic in the current configuration. 

    The problem is that the President’s budget has to assume for roaring levels of growth to get the Receipts column high enough to run only a $700B deficit.  If the economy grows more slowly than 7%, or Obamacare adds substantially to the Outlays column, or something catastrophically bad and expensive happens between now and then, then the deficits will be much higher, and the ratio of debt to GDP will correspondingly be much higher as well.  The prospect of $25T  of publicly held debt even in the President’s (overly) optimistic scenario seems alarmingly high to me, and the scenario in which we have about $20T in GDP and $30+T in debt seems much more likely, and would be even worse.  At what point does the debt burden become unsustainable, do you think?  Even the 100% ratio that you seem comfortable with seems too high to me, but I’ll admit to not being an economist.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Citation needed.

    ‘Medicare’ is not a thing that comes to mind when I think ‘welfare’. Food stamps, unemployment benefits, and TANF are, and those are [perceived to be] predominantly beneficiaries of color. And Medicare beneficiaries are worse off economically than the general population. Classism is really not an improvement over racism.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If you’re so worried about the debt, why are you so opposed to bringing the taxes on very rich people and highly profitable companies up and the tax breaks such people get down? Increasing household income is a time-honored way of reducing household debt, which (since you’re so sure the government budget should work like a household budget) must hold true for the government.

  • Lori

     

    Lori, most of the conversation during the Presidential campaign focused
    on structural reforms to Medicare, and Medicare recipients are 85% over
    the age of 65 and 80% white.  The purpose of the proposed reforms is
    entirely to make the program financially solvent.  You presumably
    disagree with the GOP’s proposed approach, but to continue to insist
    that it is due to racism just can’t be sustained.     

    I don’t think that “most of the conversation during the Presidential campaign focused
    on structural reforms to Medicare” and I’m inclined to think that you do because you believe that’s a winning argument for the GOP, but I’ll play along.

    First, classism is not an improvement on, nor does it preclude racism.

    Second, The changes that the GOP is pushing for Medicare would disproportionately effect poor people of color, so there’s that.

    Third, the purpose of the proposed reforms is most certainly not to entirely to make the program financially solvent, it’s to get rid of the program. You are either in deep, deep denial or you’re getting all your news from Right wing sources or you think we’re stupid. None of those are good.

  • Lori

    If the GOP was actually worried about the deficit they wouldn’t be literally holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in order to hang onto the Bush takes cuts for high earners.

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3873

    See that big brown stip in the middle that’s getting bigger? That’s the thing the GOP is willing to wreck the country to keep. There is no reason to take Republicans seriously about the deficit as long as they hold this position.

    As for when the debt becomes unsustainable, I’d say it’s at some point well after people stop wanting to throw money at the US government because it’s the best deal available. It’s funny how the GOP and it’s patrons wanted us all to be terrified of the “bond vigilantes” when they supposedly hated the debt, but when investors demonstrate that they don’t think it’s a problem we’re all supposed to ignore them.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Indeed. Reading Joe Califano and Vincent Bugliosi really rehabilitated him in my eyes a few years back.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well, then you’ll be cheered by the President’s budget, which projects
    7% economic growth over the next decade!  Although that would certainly
    be a great thing; even the 3% you predict would be great, but it does
    seem optimistic in the current configuration.

    As EllieMurasaki said, Citation Needed.

    Because this sounds like you’re hoping to re-appropriate a gimmick Reagan’s economics folks used, where THEY predicted 7% per year throughout the 1980s to sell their recipe, which included some fairly steep tax cuts without concomitant sharp spending cuts (except of course to welfare).

    In doing so it seems like you want to try and take the lie that was exposed in Reagan’s time and hope you can smear Obama with it and not get asked by someone else why your accusation is so similar to something that happened on the (R) side.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I normally discount the more alarmist predictions of people like Shadow Government Statistics, but the writer on that website has a point:

    If economic growth doesn’t keep pace with a mounting discrepancy between revenues and spending, sooner or later the US government will be forced to fill the gap with the printing press.

    It seems like the Republicans are trying to figure out a way to make it so they can stick the Dems with that albatross and escape all responsibility in their brinkmanship games making that scenario more likely and not less likely.

  • Jeff

    I linked to it earlier, but here again is the President’s budget submission for FY2013:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

    Look specifically at Table S-1. 

    The current GDP is about $15T, and the budget projects a GDP of about $25T by FY22.  That requires an annual growth rate of about 6%.  My earlier quick back-of-the-envelope calculation appears to have been off a bit on slightly more careful back-of-the-envelope analysis.  Regardless, 6%, 7%, neither seems particularly likely.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Are you calculating the growth rate using the simple or compound formula?

    (EDIT: Also, those don’t look like constant dollars. Those look like nominal dollars.)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    “Most of the campaign focused on Medicare” is pretty false, but one of Romney’s very big points was “Don’t worry, elderly voters. I’m not taking away your medicare. Just your kids’”

    There was also a fair amount of effort in the campaign by repulbicans trying to convince eldery voters that Obama was going to take away  their medicare.

  • Lori

     

    It seems like the Republicans are trying to figure out a way to make it
    so they can stick the Dems with that albatross and escape all
    responsibility in their brinkmanship games making that scenario more
    likely and not less likely.  

    I suspect that at least some of them are thinking exactly this. Their 4 year project to make Obama a one term president failed so they have to find some way to turn his 2nd term to their advantage. One way to do that is to make sure the inevitable consequences of their policies land during his 2nd term so that he takes the fall.

  • Jeff

    Most of the *discussion about entitlement spending reform* during the campaign focused on Medicare. 

  • Lori

     Repeating an assertion does not make it a fact.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which doesn’t erase the facts that, one, racist discussion about reforming other entitlements took place during the campaign, two, reforming Medicare in a way that hurts its current beneficiaries and prevents younger people who are all-else-equal to current beneficiaries from being future beneficiaries is classist, and three, the problem here is still the Republican message, not the Republican messaging.

  • Gotchaye

     I recall that being technically true, but not in a way that reflects well on the Republicans.  Much of the primary was a competition to establish who hated Obamacare more.  I don’t recall much talk about specific reforms; the message was basically just “Obama’s reform is bad”.  Romney wasn’t much better after winning the nomination; he obviously wasn’t in a position to talk up the benefits of his own favored reform.

    The Ryan pick changed things somewhat.  Attacks on Obamacare became a bit more specific, with the campaign spending a lot of time attacking Obama for making the same cut Ryan himself proposed.  Romney and Ryan ran away from the specifics in the Ryan plan (although, to be fair, this was Romney’s policy on specifics for any spending cut or tax increase).  Eventually, the campaign came out with a modified version of Ryan’s voucher scheme, which was basically “don’t get sick”.  Of course, it actually wasn’t that bad, since the first part of the plan was “do nothing for ten years”, and the same political calculation that caused Romney/Ryan to put off implementation for that long made it a pretty safe bet that it would be put off by another ten years ten years later.

    And that’s pretty much all I remember.  I guess there was some talk, as there always is, of allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.  The idea there is to save money by triggering a race to the bottom, where healthy people can buy cheaper insurance from states that don’t require insurance companies to cover relatively rare or expensive conditions or which give insurance companies relatively more power to deny coverage after the fact.  I’m not sure that anyone seriously thought this would produce better outcomes; it’s just another form of “don’t get sick”, and it saves money on average by denying health care to people who really need it.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Soooooooo.

    Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached.

    Obama caved on the tax thing and let the marginal tax rates go up only for above $400k, but the Dems did get a lot of the other tax stuff in too, like raising the capital gains rate back up to 20% and extending the tax cuts and unemployment insurance payments.

    The payroll tax rate is still due to go back up, so people will see somewhat smaller paychecks unless Obama can push an expansion of the EITC or some other compensating tax measure.

  • Ross Thompson

    Point of order: a lot of people with incomes get as much in federal income tax refunds as they get withheld from their paychecks, or they don’t have anything withheld and end up owing nothing, on account of they don’t have a hell of a lot of income. These are part of Romney’s 47%.

    I have to say, I agreed with Republicans when they said “It’s criminal that, in the richest country in the world, half the population doesn’t earn enough to pay income tax”.

    And then they blew it by going on to say “therefore, we should change the rules so they do have to pay income tax, regardless”.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The only real people to Republicans seem to be millionaires (-_-)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X